#12802: test containment of ideals in class MPolynomialIdeal
--------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
Reporter: mariah | Owner: AlexGhitza
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: minor | Milestone: sage-5.1
Component: algebra | Resolution:
Keywords: sd40.5, groebner bases, ideals | Work issues:
documentation
Report Upstream: N/A | Reviewers:
Authors: John Perry | Merged in:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
--------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
Comment (by john_perry):
Okay, so the problems were real, but were discovered because there's a
very weird test of elements of quadratic number fields: basically, if a
and b are distinct elements of a quadratic number field, then a>b and b>a
are always true:
{{{
sage: K.<a> = NumberField(x^2 + 1)
sage: a > a + 1
True
}}}
That strikes me as really, really '''odd''' behavior.
Anyway, I'm about to upload a new patch that undoes the stupidity I did to
`sage.rings.ideal.py`, adds some documentation to the `__cmp__` function
in `Ideal_generic`, then takes care of the things that need taking care of
down in `sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_idea.py`. I've also added
documentation. (Sorry about that -- it didn't occur to me because the
stuff I was rewriting wasn't documented, either.) It also removes a
boatload of whitespace.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12802#comment:4>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
